Kiristar
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
I'm horrified.
There definitely seems to be disproportionate representation of BPS views, which get described in detail repeatedly without any qualification around their conflicting / vested interests, which don't see to be recognised.
This very skewed output has very worrying implications for what may happen next to the plan .
Is there anything we can do that won't hinder more than help?
Like highlight the conflict of interest of most stakeholders spouting bps nonsense and reiterating researched facts about recovery rates, lack of evendence of BPS causation model, waste of resources covering same old ground which has not aided patients??

Edit - typos / grammar
There definitely seems to be disproportionate representation of BPS views, which get described in detail repeatedly without any qualification around their conflicting / vested interests, which don't see to be recognised.
This very skewed output has very worrying implications for what may happen next to the plan .
Is there anything we can do that won't hinder more than help?
Like highlight the conflict of interest of most stakeholders spouting bps nonsense and reiterating researched facts about recovery rates, lack of evendence of BPS causation model, waste of resources covering same old ground which has not aided patients??
Edit - typos / grammar
Last edited: